World chess champion Alexander Alekhine died on 23 March 1946. At the July 1946 Winterthur congress, FIDE proposed a contest for the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.[1] They planned a quadruple round robin tournament featuring the following candidates- Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.[2]Max Euwe was also included because he had previously held the world title.[3] The tournament was delayed, partly because the USSR was not yet a FIDE member.[4] On 15 September 1946, the proposed contestants (except Fine) met in Moscow to iron out the details. This meeting occurred a day after the USSR-USA match ended, and did not involve FIDE.[5] Botvinnik reportedly announced that he would not play in the Netherlands. He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title.[4] The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow. The Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright because they wanted all the games to be played in Moscow.[6] Meanwhile, FIDE president Alexander Rueb withdrew FIDE's claim to organize the tournament.[4]

Smyslov vs Keres, The Hague, 1948

Nothing concrete was decided until the next FIDE congress in The Hague on 30 July-2 August 1947. The Soviets were now members of FIDE.[7] All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946. The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played partly in The Hague and partly in Moscow, and most notably, no extra player would be added.[8,9]Miguel Najdorf was excluded because of this change. He won Prague 1946 and would have qualified directly for the championship tournament, since Botvinnik won Groningen 1946 and was already seeded into the championship.[9] Shortly before the tournament, Fine dropped out due to academic commitments. FIDE therefore decided to stage a quintuple round robin, for a total of 25 rounds, with one player having a bye each round.[10,11]

The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour after that.[12,13] Players were permitted two assistants to help analyze adjourned games.[14] First prize was $5,000; second $3,000; third $2,000; fourth $1,500; and fifth $1,000.[13]Milan Vidmar was arbiter, assisted by Alexander Kotov.[12,15] Decided by lot, the first 10 rounds were held in The Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow.[16] During the first leg, all players except Botvinnik lodged at the Kurhaus in Scheveningen.[17] Botvinnik objected to the Kurhaus, explaining that he wanted to stay "in a hotel where I can get to... (the Dierentuin playing hall) on foot in twenty minutes."[18] At first, a few members of the Russian delegation insisted that Botvinnik stay with the other players at the Kurhaus. But Soviet consul Filipp Chikirisov offered to locate different lodgings, and Botvinnik was eventually able to secure rooms at the Hotel De Twee Steden for his family and his seconds, Viacheslav Ragozin and Salomon Flohr.[18]

Botvinnik led the field by a point when he faced Keres in the 10th round. Due to a scheduling vagary, Keres was playing after an unusually long layoff. Before the tournament, Botvinnik had noticed this odd scheduling possibility and warned his countrymen that "when we get to The Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day." "After six days' rest", Botvinnik later recalled, "Keres sat across from me, pale as death."[19] Keres proceeded to lose in 23 moves, enabling Botvinnik to carry a 1.5 point lead into the Moscow leg. In Moscow, the masters played in the magnificent Salle des Colonnes in front of 2,000 spectators. 3,000 more people were in the streets outside, following the action on a giant demonstration board.[20] Botvinnik clinched the title by round 22, finishing three points ahead of Smyslov.

Some charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.[21] According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres."[22] In 1991 Botvinnik claimed that "during the second half in Moscow... it was proposed that the other Soviet players... lose to me on purpose... it was Stalin... who proposed this. But of course I refused!"[23] In a 1994 conversation with Gennady Sosonko, Botvinnik said "...in 1948 I played well. I prepared with all my heart and showed what I was capable of."[24]

G.W.J. Zittersteyn, The Preparations for the Netherlands Leg in Max Euwe, The Hague-Moscow 1948 Match/Tournament for the World Chess Championship (Russell Enterprises 2013), p.19

D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title. In Chess Life and Review (Apr 1948), p.7

Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim pp.113-114. We have corrected the spelling of the hotel in the source text, which was Twee Staden. According to a contemporary Dutch newspaper account, the correct spelling is De Twee Steden. De Tijd, 25 March 1948, p.2.

keypusher: <SpiritedReposte: Wasn't Gata Kamsky's father quoted saying "we are retiring from chess, sick of dealing with the chess mafia." Or something to that effect.>

Rustam Kamsky complaining about the chess mafia is like Dutch Schultz complaining about the real thing.

The field for this tournament was reasonable, though not perfect. There is way too much whining about the selection process. As usual, Bronstein seems to be largely to blame. No one at the time seemed surprised or disturbed that Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe would compete. Would have been better if they had put Najdorf into Fine's slot, though.

"Larry Evans' competence and honesty as a journalist have come increasingly under fire recently. Now with the 9/2001 'Chess Life' he compounds his sins. I refer to his comments about me on page 14 - crude attempts to mislead CL readers. A full rebuttal to his falsehoods and distortions could take several pages; I reply here to his worst offenses."

"The dispute between Evans and myself stems from my article 'The Keres-Botvinnik Case' (CL, 5/1998), which was in part a critique of his 'Tragedy of Paul Keres' (CL, 10/1996). Now in the 9/2001 CL Evans writes: 'But [Kingston] devotes six pages to the topic without reaching any conclusion despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1991 interview that Stalin did intervene.'"

"Shameless deception! By saying 'despite' Evans implies that I ignored important evidence in 1998. What he does not say is that these things were then unknown to both him and me. The Botvinnik interview lay buried in a non-chess Dutch magazine, virtually unknown to the wider world, until it was translated into English and posted on Tim Krabbe's website on 10 December, 1999. This is verified by Krabbe himself (e-mail to me, 12/12/99). Whyld's conversation with Keres was in 1962, but was not made public until 11 June, 2000 (again by Krabbe), as Whyld himself told me (e-mail, 8/11/01)."

"Evans further states: 'In a letter to the editor of 'Kingpin' (Spring 2000) Taylor Kingston claimed I misrepresented his views about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy.' Again, false and misleading. Evans misrepresented my opinion of his article, knowing since 1998 that I no longer endorse it. His spokesman Larry Parr has finally admitted that Evans' 'Kingpin' note was morally wrong (rgcp newsgroup, 8/25/2001)."

"In passing, I note Evans' claim (CL 10/2001, p. 7) that Parr has 'refuted' Winter on rgcp. Nonsense - delegating Parr to defend Evans against Winter has proven to be like delegating Al Capone to defend against charges of bootlegging."

"Evans has the right to disagree with me, but no right to misrepresent me, especially to the entire USCF membership. His column is becoming an embarrassment to USCF."

zanzibar: Hans Ree, writing in the Forward of the reissued Euwe tb, relates the Euwe confiscated notes story as follows:

<A curious incident, not mentioned in this book but later described by Euwe, happened at the Polish-Russian border, when the players and their entourage were on their way to Moscow for the second part of the tournament. Soviet custom officials were intrigued by the strange hieroglyphic-looking notes in Euwe’s luggage that in fact constituted his opening repertoire. What should they do?

Making a phone call to Moscow, obviously, where it was decided that Euwe’s notes should be confiscated, checked at leisure in Moscow, and eventually given back. It was a scenario for one of Reuben Fine’s nightmares. Perhaps the safety of the foreign players would be assured, but not that of their notes.

But Botvinnik intervened and phoned Moscow himself. After many hours of waiting it was decided that Euwe could keep his notes, provided that he signed a declaration that nothing in it would be detrimental to the Soviet state. To Botvinnik, Euwe joked that in any event, his analyses were either aimed at Reshevsky, or bad and useless. All is well that ends well.
>

"Botvinnik reportedly announced that he would not play in the Netherlands. He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title."

However in CHESS November 1946.(page 63 - cover story).

It reads that the original claim which upset Botvinnik came from a Dutch newspaper about possible fellow Russians collaborating prior to and regarding the Groningen (1946) tournament and not the 1948 World Championship event.

(It appears all these game fixing rumours can be traced back to a bored Dutch Hack with column inches to fill.)

keypusher: <Sally> Yes. <tamar> You are going to wait a long time, my friend. :-) That is not a small book.

I should have thought harder about the copyright issue, I guess, crazy as current copyright law is (Keres has been dead for more than 40 years). Obviously when I did the Tarrasch book it wasn't an issue -- I got that book off the internet, since it had entered the public domain long ago.

I strongly recommend the Keres book, and I'm very glad I got it, though it is pricey.

keypusher: <I should have thought harder about the copyright issue, I guess, crazy as current copyright law is (Keres has been dead for more than 40 years).>

This, of course, is an absurd thing to say. Copyright law <is> crazy, but there is nothing crazy about wanting copyright protection on a translation you just published, especially if it is the first edition in English. Lord knows I couldn't have done much with the Estonian or Russian versions, even if I could have found them.

I've thought of one way to assuage my guilt -- I could get you a copy, <tamar>. I think that would more than make it up to the publisher, and I've been grateful for your posts on the Keres-Botvinnik games and dozens if not hundreds of other games over the years. If you would like a copy, please post your address in my forum, and I'll delete it afterwards.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.